Those tapes might have been helpful

The “intelligent-design” creationism case is underway in Dover, Pa., with several parents and teachers testifying yesterday that there was an atmosphere of “intimidation and anger” when the community’s school board members voted last year to require biology teachers to read a statement in class that casts doubt on the theory of evolution.

While the classroom guidelines are obviously the central point of this lawsuit, how local officials went about passing this policy matters. If, for example, plaintiffs can demonstrate that ID proponents were driven by a religious agenda, then it’ll be that much easier to win the case.

Fortunately, when shaping the policy, school board members were careless about their motivations. School board member and ID-advocate Allan Bonsell, who owns an auto repair business and has no background in science, told Bryan Rehm, a former physics teacher at Dover High School and the parent of a ninth-grader there, that modern biology is “against his religious views” and that Bonsell particularly was concerned about the idea of “monkeys to man.”

In an interesting development, however, it’s going to difficult to prove this. You’ll never guess why.

Sworn testimony as well as two newspaper accounts note that Bonsell and other board members dismissed the separation of church and state as a myth, and initially favored equally teaching creationism and evolution. Bonsell and the board members have denied making these statements or have said they were misquoted. The board meetings were taped, but the tapes apparently were destroyed. (emphasis added)

How terribly convenient. A room full of local parents, including at least two journalists, heard school board members admit to a religious bias and a desire to advance creationism. The remarks were recorded and could have made this lawsuit a no-brainer.

But this key piece of evidence was “apparently destroyed.” It seems like a little detail that needs some follow-up. Destroyed by whom? How? When?

Typical. But how about this for showing that the school board has a religious agenda….they are being defended by the Thomas More Law Center!! Thomas More’s own website ( http://www.thomasmore.org/about.html ) states:
“The Thomas More Law Center is a not-for-profit public interest law firm dedicated to the defense and promotion of the religious freedom of Christians”

Gee…doesn’t that demonstrate that the board has some sort of religious agenda??? These dopes don’t even have the sense to hire a lawyer that appears secular.
Please God, let the school board people lose this case….(snark)

  • Evidence is not given its due respect by IDers. They are doing everything in their power to eliminate centuries of scientific evidence, so the literal destruction of relevant physical evidence is not suprising.

    IDers see the youth of this country as a battleground. If they cannot indoctrinate them to their ignorant belief system, they run the risk of growing up as, dare I say, liberal.

  • It would be interesting to call Bonsell to the stand and ask him to testify – under oath – just what was said at that board meeting, and whether or not he agrees with the statements he is reported to have made.

  • As I indicated in http://donsingleton.blogspot.com/2005/09/intimidation-alleged-on-intelligent.html, “Teachers complain when the school board requires them to read a statement??? Who the heck runs the school? The School Board, which is elected to do that job, or the administrators it hires, or some teachers that are just hired to teach what the school board wants taught?” and “And I suppose an English teacher might say nine board members without degrees in English Literature should not be dictating an English Literatur curriculum, or nine board membes without degrees in Mathematics should not be dictatating a Math curriculum. The school board is elected to run the school system, and dictating what is taught and what is not taught is their job. If you dont like it, resign and run for the school board. If you are elected, you will then have a voice in what is taught.”

  • If you are elected, you will then have a voice in what is taught.

    Don, that’s only partially true. School board members can help set a curricula, but they can’t ignore legal restrictions on the separation of church and state.

    The case isn’t about whether the Dover School Board has the authority to force teachers to recite psuedo-scientific nonsense before biology class; it’s about whether those changes are consistent with the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent in this area.

  • Don, the point is the school board is forcing the teaching of creatonism (sorry, ID) in public schools. This is forcing children to be taught Christian doctrine. How much of a debate would we be having if the argument was to teach, say, Native American creation myth as biology? Most people would say that’s ridiculus. It is sadly the same thing as teaching intelligent design as biology. The US Constitution guarantees a freedom of religion. By teaching Christian beliefs in public schools as scientific fact, the state is, by definition, forcing children into Christianity. Intelligent design, creationism, or whatever else you want to call it, belongs in a comparison religion class, not the science class room.

    It strikes me as odd that we will rise up in arms about fundamental religions in the middle east, but close our eyes to the return of puritanical fundalmentalism in the United States. It won’t be long before the witch hunts begin again.

  • ID backers might argue that they don’t teach a Christian doctrine, but it is trivial to prove that they teach a theist doctrine contradicting the basic tenets of scientific inquiry. Forcing this dogma down a science teacher’s throat is a disgrace. It’s bad enough when a school board erodes the quality of the education they were elected to deliver, but we might have to allow that a community elects the school board it deserves.

    However, when the school board acts with brazenly evangelical motives, it is time for the state to purge the anti-intellectual lay priests before they pollute the education of an entire class of students, especially those that don’t already subscribe to their theistic perspective.

  • Destroyed? Mmmm.

    It is a civil lawsuit so this is not Arthur Andersen and Its Merry Shredders but, if found intentional, does it still count as obstruction of justice ?

  • Comments are closed.